Ya know at some point, given the unneeded rules changes that some folks are sticking on the rest of us,
such as the King must be touched first in castling, and now the 75 draw move as opposed to 50, the idea
that you cannot write down your moves until after you move, etc, and etc, and etc, I will just have a book
of exceptions ready for all my tournament players to read, so that at least at some corner of this world
sanity can remain. It seems the FIDE coolaide is indeed too tasty for too many.
Just a brief comment about one of the items on your list:
FIDE did not replace the 50-move rule with a 75-move rule. A player may still claim after 50 moves. If neither player does, the arbiter can declare the game drawn after 75.
Whoever came up with the notion that score keeping could be used as a form of note taking?
If a player writes a move down, and then takes more time to verify his analysis, then decides that that move isn’t any good, how is that a technique of memorization, or note taking? I find this rule absurd.
I’ve got a feeling this rule came about by parents and coaches who either don’t play chess, or don’t play very well. How many Class A players, and above, on this board think this is a form of cheating?
Now, if a player begins writing down all sorts of different variations, without erasing them, and taking egads of time to figure out which is best, then perhaps that would be a memorization technique, but writing one move down, then changing one’s mind due to something new one has found, well, it boggles the mind that this would be considered cheating.
[size=85]
(BTW: I base my rant on the TD Tip following 15A. This tip states that a TD may penalize a player whom the TD believes is taking notes by following 15A’s rules and permissions. So now, we can follow a rule, and still be warned, or penalized if we do it too much?)[/size]
Touching the King first, when castling. This makes a bit more sense, but in practice, I’ve never had an opponent touch his King’s Rook first that I didn’t believe his intention was to castle. O-O-O, I can see as being ambiguous, so a clear rule to cover both scenarios seems reasonable to me.
As far as FIDE, I suppose it’s good to be consistent with what foreign player’s experiences are when they’re invited here, but what about our own player’s experiences? What happened to the old “when in Rome do as the Romans do” philosophy?
I’m getting a sense that we’re changing rules just for the sake of following FIDE’s rules, and that’s silly considering that few US players even compete in those tournaments, and yet I bet that the majority of members proposing such changes have NEVER played in a FIDE tournament.
Providing a rule simply because it’s a FIDE rule doesn’t make as much sense.
If we’re so in love with aligning with FIDE, then simply do away with our rules and be done with it, or, do like FIDE does and remove the players/members/delegates from the rule making process altogether.
I am an expert, and I think that being able to write down a proposed move and then later erase it before making it provides an advantage. Whether it is “cheating” or not is a question for the rulebook.
Basically, being able to write down a variation of n moves while thinking is more advantageous than being able to write down n-1 moves (anyone who has solved chess puzzles ought to agree with this), and I believe this holds even for n=1.
Just my opinion, and it’s not strong, but you asked for it.
Considering I’m on the FIDE Rules Commission you’re way off base in terms of how the rule making process happens. There are organizers, arbiters, players and coaches that are directly on the commission and those that still provide input to the commission. We also discuss and argue at length the changes and we make changes to the Laws of Chess only once every four years rather than at every meeting as we do in the USCF.
I also happen to be on the USCF Rules Committee and we also discuss at length the changes to rules. Changes aren’t just made to ‘align’ better. If we find that some of the FIDE rules are better we adopt them and even tweak them a bit or allow for announced variations.
We have a global economy, a global society, a global world, a global arena, a global globe – and a global chessboard. The rules of chess (how the pieces move) have been the same the world over for about 400 years. “When in Rome do as the Romans do” just doesn’t cut it anymore. In the absence of specific, and strong, reasons to differ, the rules should be the same.
Surely we in the USA can learn to live with king-first castling, moving before writing, etc. What’s the big deal?
Not true at all. The vast majority of tournaments I play in, including the smaller events, are both USCF- and FIDE-rated. It is not at all silly for USCF to align with FIDE whenever feasible.
Not such a bad idea, in most areas. Stick with one standard whenever it is reasonable to do so.
About the only justifiable difference between FIDE and USCF rules lies in the area of TD intervention. With large USA-style swisses, it may not be practical for arbiters to call flags, etc. But even here, I think USCF could move somewhat in FIDE’s direction – for example, by encouraging clocks to be set to “halt at end” mode.
I would like the 7th edition USCF rulebook to be a joint effort, with both USCF and FIDE representation on the rulebook revision committee. The committee’s goal should be the building of a common rule set, published by both organizations, to the fullest extent possible. Perhaps, with that goal, there would be some genuine give-and-take in both directions, resulting in a product superior to both the current FIDE rules and the current USCF rules.
With the makeup of the new Congress in 2015, it might be possible to get legislation passed as an amendment to the expected immigration bill that bans the changes of rules made by FIDE from being used in the US. Certainly, no red blooded, patriotic American wants an internationalist organization to be inserting itself into the affairs of our national organizations. Congress could appropriate billions to put up walls to stop FIDE’s incursions. At the very least, it would get through the xenophobic House of Representatives.
Streamlining with FIDE LOC seems to be the current wave, but as Bill Smythe notes that’s not all bad. I suspect there will be fewer, not more, FIDE-rated events in the USA below top-level as the (FIDE) regs now stand, but that could change.
I like to avoid the USCF rules vs. the rest of the world thing. Focus on what makes sense and makes life fairer and easier for players first, TDs/arbiters second.
When I sent a mass-emailing to some chess friends after this year’s Delegates Meeting, to share rules updates, I included the following guide for players in ‘any’ rated event in the U.S.:
Be seated at the board at the scheduled start time, with a clock set for the announced time control, including any delay or increment.
Turn all electronic devices completely off. If you need to keep a phone or pager on vibrate for work/family reasons, make sure the TDs/organizers know and approve.
Move first, then record your move in algebraic notation.
Touch the King first when castling.
The only part of the above that should be even a slight problem or cause controversy is the move-first, then-record standard. I have always done it that way, but I do not object if an opponent records first, then moves, as long as: he uses a paper scoresheet rather than a newfangled electronic doohickey; and he does not stare at, scratch out and re-record several candidate moves at multiple points in the game.
It’s not all a FIDE conspiracy. Check the Forum posts right after the DM in re touch-move and castling. FIDE has changed course there at least once. Also see Fischer’s famous scoresheet from the 1970 Olympiad game vs. Spassky, in descriptive notation, plus the famous record-first incident vs. Tal in I think the 1959 Candidates.
Below was a comment of mine from a thread on the USCF rules committee near the end of September when a comment was made that there was the assumption that FIDE rated sections would decrease with the more stringent requirements. My tone below is not aimed at Eric but at the previous individual I was responding to and I don’t have the cycles right now to clean it up.
Here are the stats since Aug 2012 when the FIDE rating list was published monthly. FIDE began requiring following the LoC 1-July-2014 and registration of national arbiters on 1-Jan-2014.
First the fact that only 4 months worth of data (July, Aug, Sept, Oct) would be available to draw even any partial conclusions, the data doesn’t lend itself to ‘decreasing activity’. 116 vs 146 comparing July-Oct 2013 with the same months in 2014. Net increase of 30 sections rated.
Even accounting for the national arbiter requirement the numbers come out as: 265 vs 341 for the period of Jan-Oct 2013 vs the same months in 2014. Net increase of 76 sections rated.
In 2013 there were 305 sections rated, it’s already surpassed that in 2014 with more stringent guidelines for the national arbiter requirement and following FIDE rules for FIDE rated sections.
Unfortunately we have two camps - one that finds that USCF rules are the only thing out there and one that finds that FIDE rules are the only thing out there. While there are those of us that find there are pro’s and con’s to both sides and attempt to bridge them and get one side to accept modifications to meet in the middle where feasible.
Yeah kinda. It’s not about making like fairer and easier for either players or arbiters. It’s about establishing a set of rules for competition that provides for a reasonable and level playing field.
We’re currently discussing two topics which most of the committee sides with adopting the FIDE rules while making some slight modifications:
Currently under USCF rules if one player has less than 5 minutes on the clock and no 30-sec (or more) increment BOTH players can cease keeping score. This doesn’t exist under FIDE rules. We are currently of the opinion to have the individual with more than 5 minutes to continue keeping score as it is in FIDE. Funny enough even in club tournaments players are confused on the USCF rule - “my opponent has less than 5 minutes, can I stop taking notation too” is the common question I get or “my opponent has less than 5 minutes but he’s still taking notation, do I have to continue or can I stop?”
Currently under USCF rules there is the ‘call your own flag’ option. Most of us on the committee are of the opinion to remove that option and replace it with FIDE’s rule (I’m paraphrasing here) where if the flag(s) is/are down to review the scoresheet to determine if time control was met or reconstruct the game under the review of an arbiter; if after re-construction it can’t be determined if the 40 moves was met, then the game continues on into the next time period. I’ll have to dig up the exact language we’re using/discussing.
One problem you would have here is that a game with mutual time pressure would not give either player a reason to continue to keep score. I have played games in mutual time pressure where my opponent stopped keeping score but I continued. In such games, if my opponent flags I have a valid scoresheet and can claim it, while if I flag my opponent does not have a valid scoresheet and thus cannot claim it. If my scoresheet can be used against me then it makes more sense to not spend the time writing moves down, with the result that after 8-10 moves it becomes extremely difficult, if even possible, to reconstruct the moves and determine whether or not the time control was reached.
Do the delegates have to approve those changes, or can the committee make changes on its own? No preference intended here, just a query for my own edification
Just because FIDE chooses to jump like kangaroos does not
mean USCF should. And many of the rules differences that
have been different between the two, many of us do believe
that USCF is the far superior product. Less FIDE = better
USCF in the minds of many of us. And many of us, as USCF
TDs, will resist these unneeded, unheeded changes ALAP.
Every time a rule change related to a FIDE rules change comes up, the Delegates end up debating the value of changing rules to be in lockstep with FIDE. Every time we come to the conclusion that there is some value to having the same rule but that we have to determine whether the change makes sense here. Sometimes we approve it, sometimes we don’t. My perception is that a FIDE rules change frequently provides the impetus for a proposal but is not generally enough to sway the delegates. We decide on the merits. That is as it should be.
Extra Rules are for the things we forgot or the rule benders.
The writing of the move first isn’t that from a Fischer complaint?
Second, I’m sure this is covered, but dont have ru’le book.
Mutual time pressure; my flag falls. He doesn’t call as we think we are past move 40. Time continues to run both lights are flashing or only one, if claim is made what is ruling?
Um, you must clearly mean that you did not have your copy of the rule book with you at the time you were writing your post. After all, you have been certified as a club TD for nearly one year, and you would clearly know that you are required to have a rule book available when directing as required by item three under “players’ rights” in chapter five (“Players’ Rights and Responsibilities”):
(The list continues, but I have shortened it in the interest of brevity.)
I would think it would be highly unfortunate to have a player in my event appeal my action to the Tournament Director Certification Committee (TDCC) and to have to explain that I do not have a copy of the rule book.
When is the end of the time control? Or is it sudden death?
Is either player keeping score?
Have more than three moves been missed by the person wanting to make a claim?
Is it an increment time control? delay? neither?
Is it played under USCF or FIDE rules?
What material is on the board?
Is it checkmate or stalemate on the board?
Was the last move legal?
That is a partial list of questions that need to be answered before a ruling can be made (I am not being facetious, each answer can affect the ruling). I may have overlooked some additional questions that would need to be answered.
P.S. This is one example of why TDs are hesitant to answer hypothetical questions. This initially seems like a simple, straightforward question (a designation that would be erroneous).
I’m placing this in list form to try and make more sense.
Mutual time pressure; OK my flag falls. OK Is there a secondary time control, or is this the only t/c? He doesn’t call [i]as we think we are past move 40[/i]. OK, I assume, then, that this is a move control Time continues to run Does this mean that you have a clock that automatically switches to secondary, etc. time controls? both lights are flashing or only one, Do the flashing lights indicate that the clock is still running, or it is paused? if claim is made what is ruling? What type of claim are we talking about here?
Chapter 13 in the rulebook is where you need to be looking.
All of these questions are essential to the answer. As is the chief tds instructions prior to the event. I have seen chief tds with secondary time
controls waive the notation requirements with 5 min left in the initial time control to resume in the secondary time control. Needless to say, often
confusion reigns.
Certainly, no red blooded, patriotic American wants an internationalist organization to be inserting itself into the affairs of our national organizations. Congress could appropriate billions to put up walls to stop FIDE’s incursions. 
At the very least, it would get through the xenophobic House of Representatives.